A challenge to promoted Geologists' continuance for failure to pass the Account Test was dismissed. The court found their appointments lawful and refused quo warranto while probation-extension applications remained with the Government. It also refused consequential invalidation of their official orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 19441 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
BENNY SEBASSTIAN, S/O.SEBASTIAN, AGED 46 YEARS PALATHUMTHALACKEL, MUTTOM P.O., THODUPUZHA - 685 587, NOW RESIDING AT KALLOORKAD P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 668.
BY ADVS. SHRI P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT. PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212) SRI. T.C.KRISHNA SRI. C.ANILKUMAR SMT. ASHA K.SHENOY SR. PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS:
3 AJAY KUMAR, GEOLOGIST, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 001.
R3 & R4 BY ADVS. SRI. K.JAYAKUMAR (SR.) SRI. S.K.SAJU SRI. MANJU E.R.
R1 & R2 BY SRI. V. TEK CHAND, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).19441/2021
“C.R”
-:2:-
J U D G M E N T
S. Manikumar, CJ
Instant Public Interest writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:
is the Honorary Secretary of Idukki District Tourism Promotion Co-operative
Society Ltd., No.1-631, a society formed to promote tourism in Idukki district. He is also the former State Secretary of Kerala NGO Front, an organization of Non-Gazetted employees of the State Government. He has
taken up various causes against illegal quarrying in the State, as also against
the unscrupulous officers of the mining and geology department, who
according to the petitioner, have been instrumental in issuance of illegal
mining permits.
WP(C).19441/2021 -:3:-
WP(C).19441/2021 -:4:-
Test (Lower) or (Higher), within a period of one year on duty, within a continuous period of two years from their date of appointment as Geologist,
if they have not already passed the test. According to the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 did not possess the said qualification whey they were appointed as Geologists as per Exhibits-P2 and P3 Government orders.
WP(C).19441/2021 -:5:-
submitted Exhibit-P23 complaint dated 30.05.2020 in that regard to the 2nd respondent- the Director of Mining and Geology, and the Vigilance and Anticorruption Bureau.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:6:-
following grounds:
WP(C).19441/2021
-:7:-
(Lower) or (Higher), for appointment as Geologist. Neither the 3rd respondent, nor the 4th respondent have passed the Account Test (Lower) or (Higher), as prescribed in Exhibit P-1 rules. Respondents 3 and 4, therefore, are ineligible to be appointed as Geologist and their continuance in service is without authority.
C. Referring to Rule 19(b)(ii) of Part II of the KS & SSR, petitioner has contended that a probationer who fails to pass the Special test prescribed in the special rules within the period of probation, then he is liable to be discharged unless the period of probation is extended under Rule 21. It is also contended that respondents 3 and 4 have not passed Accounts Test (Lower) or (higher), either before promotion as Geologist, or during the prescribed probation period of one year. The period of probation of respondents 3 and 4 have not been extended under Rule 21 as well. Therefore, they are liable to be discharged, in terms of Rule 19(b) (ii) of Part ll of the KS & SSR.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:8:-
Similarly, respondents 3 and 4 had also sanctioned hundreds of mining plans without authority. Therefore, the mining leases issued pursuant to the recommendations made by respondents 3 and 4 and mining plans are non est in the eye of law.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:9:-
respectively. At the time of entry into service as per special rules then in force, Account Test (Lower and Higher) were not mandatory to declare probation in the cadre of Assistant Geologist. Hence, their probation has been declared. Referring to Rule 7 of Exhibit-P1 Special Rules, which came into force on 25.07.2009, it is submitted that every person appointed to any of the categories shall be from the date on which he joined duty be on probation, - if appointed by direct recruitment or by transfer from any other service, for a total period of 2 years on duty within a continuous period of 3 years.
C. Respondent No.1 has further contended that thereafter, the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules were amended on 19.03.2013, whereby a proviso was included to Rule 28(a) (iii), Part II of KS&SSR w.e.f 01.04.2010. As per the said proviso, the period of probation for persons who were appointed on or after the 1st April, 2010 to the selections posts in State service, by promotion or by transfer, within the department where direct recruitment is not one of the method of appointment as per the Special Rules, shall be 6 months on duty within a continuous period of one year. As pointed out earlier, at the time of entry of respondents 3 and 4 into service, on account of the existing service rules, passing the Account Test was not mandatory, and therefore, they were promoted as Geologist.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:10:-
special qualification and has passed such special test as may be prescribed in that behalf. As per Exhibit-P1 Special Rules, no person shall be appointed to the post of Geologist unless he/she possesses the qualification of M.Sc. or equivalent degree in Geology or Applied Geology or Bachelors Degree in Mining Engineering from a recognized University or B.Sc. equivalent Degree in Geology from a recognized University and 5 years' experience in the category of Assistant Geologist.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:11:-
stated that his complaint with respect to the promotion granted to respondent No.3 need only be pursued and that the complaint as regards the approval given to the quarries need not be proceeded with because, he had filed a writ petition before this Court. Going through the above, petitioner has not made out a case for issuance of a writ of quo warranto and, therefore, respondent No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
alia , as under:
“A. The petitioner, totally a stranger, has filed the above writ petition concerning the service matter of the 3rd respondent. The writ petitioner is not only a stranger, but he is not an aggrieved person also. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273 held that in a service matter, public interest litigation at the instance of a stranger is not maintainable. This Court in R. Ajaykumar v. State of Kerala and others, after referring to a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rejected a similar matter relating to service issues.
B. He further contended that petitioner is working as a clerk in the Irrigation Department of Government of Kerala. Being a Government servant, petitioner ought to have obtained written permission of his Head of Office before initiating a litigation in which he has no direct personal interest. The Government Service Conduct Rules, 1960 is as follows:
WP(C).19441/2021
-:12:-
"22 — Litigation — No Government servant shall without a written permission of the Head of Office in the case of a non-Gazetted servant of Government and in the case of Gazetted servant —
(i) Take or transfer any claim in actionable claim or decree, or,
(ii) Concern himself in any litigation in which he has no direct personal interest".
The petitioner, though a Government servant, has not obtained any written permission from the Head of Office for filing such a writ petition. At the same time, as per Rule 146A, of the Rules of High Court of Kerala, 1971, in the case of public interest litigation, it shall be specifically averred in affidavit in support of the writ petition that the petitioner is not having any personal or private interest in the matter. Though he has stated in the affidavit that he has no personal or private interest in the matter, he has not obtained written permission from the Head of Office. There is no averment with regard to the same in the affidavit or in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.
C. It is further contended that the writ petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the 3rd respondent, due to personal vendetta. The petitioner had lodged a complaint against the 3rd respondent, while he was working as District Geologist at Idukki, with regard to the functioning of two quarries. Based on the said complaint preferred by the writ petitioner, the Director of Mining & Geology called for reports from the Geologist, Idukki. In the capacity of Geologist, the 3rd respondent submitted a report with regard to the complaint, before the Director, Mining & Geology stating that the
WP(C).19441/2021
-:13:-
complaint is baseless and actuated by ulterior motives, as evident from Exhibit R-3(a). True English translation of Ext.R3(a) is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R-3(a)-1.
D. The department accepted the report submitted by the 3rd respondent as District Geologist and the proceedings were closed. Subsequently, the writ petitioner filed another complaint dated 30-5-2021 against the 3rd respondent before the Director, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Thiruvananthapuram raising allegation of corruption, as evident from Exhibit R-3(b).
E. The petitioner also sent a copy of the said complaint to the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries (A), Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, as well as Director of Mining & Geology, Thiruvananthapuram. Pursuant to the above, the Department of Industries (A) Government of Kerala conducted a personal hearing and the 3rd respondent was directed to submit a reply statement in the matter. The petitioner filed W.P(C) No.21089 of 2020 before this Court as seeking for a direction to the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to act upon his complaint. This Court vide judgment dated 0611-2020 disposed of the writ petition, directing the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, to consider the complaint and take proper action, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, within three months from the date of the order. It was also ordered that the result of the action taken may be intimated to the petitioner within that time. True copy of the judgment dated 6-11-2020 in Writ Petition No.21089 of 2020 passed by the High Court of Kerala is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R-3(c).
WP(C).19441/2021
-:14:-
F. Pursuant to the above judgment dated 06.11.2020, the 3rd respondent submitted a reply statement dated 12-01-2021 before the Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Kerala through proper channel. True copy of the reply statement dated 12-1-2021 submitted by me and covering letter issued by the Director, Mining & Geology bearing No.8827/E1/2020 dated 9-2-2021 forwarding the same to the Principal Secretary, Industries (A) Department, Thiruvananthapuram are produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R-3(d). It was found therein that the complaint preferred by the writ petitioner was devoid of merits and further proceedings were, therefore, closed by the Government.
G. It is further contended that the writ petitioner is a very close associate of the former Director-In-Charge of Mining & Geology C.K.Baiju, who was removed from the post of Director-In-Charge, Mining & Geology. The petitioner approached the 3rd respondent seeking for help in getting his landed properties in Muttam Village, Idukki District, sold to some quarry operators. The 3rd respondent did not comply with his request. Hence, the petitioner filed the above writ petition, in order to wreak vengeance against the 3rd respondent.
H. The 3rd respondent joined the service as Assistant Geologist based on the order of appointment dated 24-06-2003, issued by the Director, Mining & Geology, as evident from Exhibit R- 3(e). He joined service on 11-07-2003 and has successfully completed probation. The Director of Mining & Geology, Thiruvananthapuram as per order dated 06-10-2005 declared
WP(C).19441/2021
-:15:-
the probation of respondent No.3, in the post of Assistant Geologist, as evident from Exhibit-R3(f) order.
I. It is further contended that the 3rd respondent was promoted as Geologist by the Government of Kerala as per recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee. True copy of the GO(P) No.16/2016/ID dated 5-6-2016 issued by the Government of Kerala and published in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary dated 7-7-2016 Vol. V publishing the select list prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee and approved by the Government of Kerala for the year 2016 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R-3(2). Pursuant to the select list, as per G.O(Rt) No.949/2016/ID dated 22-09-2016, Government promoted the 3rd respondent to the post of Geologist, as evident from Exhibit R-3(h).
J. It is further contended that at the time of my appointment as Assistant Geologist, on 24-06-2002, and on my joining service as Assistant Geologist on 11-07-2003, Account Test (Lower and Higher) were not mandatory for declaration of probation in the cadre of Assistant Geologist, as per the Special Rules then in force. Accordingly, the probation of the 3rd respondent was declared in the cadre of Assistant Geologist on 06-10-2005, vide Exhibit R-3(f) order.
K. It is further submitted that the Special Rules came into force on 25-7-2009. As per the Rule 7 of the Ext.P-1 Special Rules, every person appointed to any of the categories therein shall be on probation from the date on which he joins duty, if appointed by direct recruitment or by transfer from any other service, for a total period of two years on duty within a
WP(C).19441/2021
-:16:-
continuous period of three years and if appointed by promotion, for a total period of one year on duty within a continuous period of two years.
L. It is further submitted that the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "KS & SSR") were amended on 19-3-2013 with effect from 1-42010, whereby a proviso was included to Rule 28(a)(iii), Part II of the KS & SSR. As per the said proviso, the period of probation for persons who were appointed on or after 1st April, 2010 to the selection posts in the State service, by promotion or by transfer, within the department where direct recruitment is not one of the methods of appointment as per Special Rules, shall be six months on duty within a continuous period of one year.
M. It is further submitted that as per Rule 13, Part II of KS & SSR, no person shall be eligible for appointment to any service, class, category or grade or any post borne on the cadre thereafter unless he possesses such Special qualification and has passed such special test as may be prescribed in that behalf in the Special Rules. According to the 3rd respondent, as per Exhibit P-1 Special Rules, no person shall be eligible to be appointed, unless he possesses the qualification of M.Sc or equivalent degree in Geology or Applied Geology or Bachelor's Degree in Mining Engineering from a recognized University or B.Sc or equivalent degree in Geology from a recognized University and 5 years' experience, in the category of Assistant Geologist in the department. The 3rd respondent possesses the said qualification prescribed in the Special Rules.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:17:-
N. It is further submitted that as per Rule 21, Part II of KS & SSR, in case of any probationer, the appointing authority may extend his probation to enable him to acquire special qualifications or pass the prescribed test to enable the appointing authority to decide whether the probationer is suitable for being granted full membership to the service or not. On 16-6-2020, the 3rd respondent applied to the Director of Mining & Geology, Thiruvananthapuram for extending the period of probation due to non-qualifying the Account test. As a matter of fact, though he applied to participate in the account test conducted by the Public Service Commission, the 3rd respondent could not attend the same as my father fell ill due to a stroke. In such circumstances, the 3rd respondent could not qualify the account test. True copy of letter dated 16-6-2020 submitted by the 3rd respondent to the Director of Mining & Geology, Thiruvananthapuram is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R-3(i).
O. The Director of Mining & Geology, Thiruvananthapuram as per Exhibit-R3(j) letter bearing No. DMG/8081/ 2021/E1 dated Nil/09/2021 forwarded the application of the 3rd respondent to the Principal Secretary II, Industries Department (A), Thiruvananthapuram, and the same is pending consideration before the Government. It is also submitted that the Director of Mining & Geology based on a letter dated 10-2-2021 issued from the Government, directed the 3rd respondent to apply to the Departmental Promotion Committee and produce the certificate, as evident from Exhibit R-3(k) notice.
P. On 2-7-2021, the Kerala Public Service Commission issued a notification for conducting the Account test. Based on the said
WP(C).19441/2021
-:18:-
notification, the 3rd respondent applied for the Departmental test. Accordingly, he was invited for the Departmental Test by the Kerala Public Service Commission, by issuing an Admission Ticket. True copy of the Admission Ticket No.243038 dated 139-2021 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission in favour of the 3rd respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R-3(l).
Q. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent participated in the written test conducted during the period from 15-9-2021 to 13-10-2021 and appeared for both Account test (lower) and Accountant test (higher). Result of the departmental test is yet to be declared by the Public Service Commission. The 3rd respondent is awaiting the result of the Departmental Test. It is also submitted that In the event of passing the departmental test, the Government is having powers to declare the probation of the 3rd respondent. The Government is empowered under Rule 21 Part-II KS & SSR 1958 to extend the period of probation. The 3rd respondent bona fide believes that the Public Service Commission will declare the result shortly.
R. It is further contended by the 3rd respondent that in the letter dated Nil/9/2021 issued by the Director of Mining & Geology, Thiruvananthapuram to the Government forwarding his application for extending the period of probation, the Director has stated that the service of the 3rd respondent in the post of Geologist and conduct as such, are satisfactory and that the 3rd respondent has participated in the departmental test and the result is yet to be published. Thus, the Head of the Department has reported to the Government that the service and conduct of the 3rd respondent is satisfactory. In
WP(C).19441/2021
-:19:-
the above fact situation, the 3rd respondent is not an usurper in the post. He was legally appointed to the post based on the qualifications prescribed under the Special Rules. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 3rd respondent is continuing in the service without any authority and that he should be discharged from service.
S. It is further contended that the writ petition is not maintainable as it is for the Government to consider extension of his period of probation considering the fact that the 3rd respondent has appeared for the departmental test and awaiting the outcome of the same. The Government has the powers to exercise its discretion in extending the probation period and to declare my probation on the basis of the departmental test.
T. It is further contended that in his total service in the department, till this date, there is no disciplinary action initiated against the 3rd respondent nor there is any judicial proceedings against him. After joining service as Assistant Geologist, the 3rd respondent did Ph.D and was awarded Ph.D by Mahatma Gandhi University in 2010. True copy of the Ph.D Certificate dated 9th February,, 2011, obtained by the 3rd respondent from Mahatma Gandhi University in the year 2010 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R-3(m).
U. The averment contained in paragraph 11 of the writ petition that the 3rd respondent has been allowed to continue as Geologist in blatant violation of the rules, despite my ineligibility on account of his influence amongst the Government officials and political masters, is absolutely
WP(C).19441/2021
-:20:-
incorrect, baseless and unsustainable. First of all, the 3rd respondent is eligible to continue as Geologist as was duly appointed as Geologist by way of promotion. Merely because his request for extension of period of probation by the competent authority, the Government of Kerala, is pending consideration, it cannot be said that he is ineligible to continue as Geologist. For the aforesaid reasons, the 3rd respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
has to pass Account Test, within a period of one year on duty in a continuous period of two years.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:21:-
party respondents, in their respective counter affidavits, petitioner has filed a reply affidavit.
the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 (19 of 1968), in supersession of all the
existing Rules and Orders issued on the subject. Rule 3 of the Rules, 2009 speaks about the Method of Appointment and it reads thus:
“3. Method of Appointment.- Appointment to the various categories of posts mentioned in column (1) of the Table Below shall be made by the method of appointment specified in column (2) thereof, namely:-
Table
| Category | Method of appointment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | ||
| 1. | Additional Director of | (1) | By promotion from the |
| Mining and Geology | category of Deputy Director of Mining and Geology. |
||
| (2) | In the absence of suitable candidates for promotion |
||
| bydirect recruitment. | |||
| 2. | DeputyDirector of | (1) | By promotion from the |
WP(C).19441/2021
-:22:-
| Mining and Geology | (2) | category of Geologist. In the absence of suitable candidates for promotion bydirect recruitment. |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 3. | Geologist | (1) | By promotion from the category of Assistant Geologist. |
| (2) | In the absence of suitable candidates for promotion, bydirect recruitment. |
||
| 4. | Assistant Geologist | Bydirect recruitment | |
| 5. | Assistant Drilling Engineer xxxxxxxxxxx |
xxxxxxx | By direct recruitment xxxxxxxxxxx |
which states about other qualifications, no person shall be eligible for appointment to any of the categories mentioned in column (1) of the Table
given below, by the method of appointment specified in the corresponding
entry in column (2), unless possess the qualifications specified in the
corresponding entry in column (3) thereof.
| Category | Method of appointment |
Qualification |
|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) |
| 1. Additional |
(1) By promotion | (1) M.Sc. or equivalent |
| Director of |
Degree in Geology or | |
| Mining and |
Applied Geology or |
|
| Geology | Bachelors Degree in Mining Engineering from a recognised University. |
|
| (2) 12 years total experience in the category |
WP(C).19441/2021
-:23:-
| xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
not below the rank of Assistant Geologist. xxxxxxxx |
|
|---|---|---|
| 3. Geologist | (1) By promotion | (1) M.Sc. or equivalent Degree in Geology or Applied Geology or Bachelors Degree in Mining Engineering from a recognised University. OR B.Sc. or equivalent Degree in Geology from a recognised University and 5 years minimum experience in the category of Assistant Geologist in the Department. |
| (b) By direct recruitment |
(1) M.Sc. or equivalent Degree (first or second class) in Geology or Applied |
|
| Geology or Bachelors Degree in Mining |
||
| Engineering from a recognised University. |
||
| (2) 3 years experience in Geological field work in a responsible post in Central/ State Government Department Organisation. |
||
| Note:- In the case of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates for direct recruitment |
||
| M.Sc. or equivalent Degree (first or second class) in |
||
| Geology or Applied Geology or Bachelors Degree in |
WP(C).19441/2021
-:24:-
| Mining Engineering from a recognised University. The selected candidates shall be on training for a period of one year and during the period of training, he/she shall be paid the minimum of the |
|---|
| scale of pay and allowances |
| attached to the post. |
| His/her probation in the post would commence only after completion of training. |
| xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
for the categories of Assistant Geologist, Junior Chemist, Assistant Drilling
Engineer and Audit Officer shall be the Director of Mining and Geology. For
all other categories, the appointing authority shall be Government.
every person appointed to any of the categories shall be from the date on
which he joins duty be on probation.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:25:-
every person appointed to any of the categories shall within the prescribed
period of probation pass the Account Test (Lower) or (Higher) if he has not already passed the same.
dated 22.09.2016 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Industries (A) Department, Government of Kerala. Relevant portion of the
same, in regard to the promotion of respondent No.3 and others, is
extracted hereunder:
“GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Abstract
Industries Department-Establishment of Mining and Geology - Promotion, Transfer and posting in the cadre of Additional Director, Deputy Director, and Geologist in the Department of Mining and Geology - Orders issued.
INDUSTRIES (A) DEPARTMENT
G.O.(Rt.) No.949/2016/ID
Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 22.09.2016
Read:- 1) G.O.(P) No.16/2016/ID dated 05.06.2016.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:26:-
The following promotions, transfers and postings are ordered in the category of Additional Director, Deputy Director and Geologist in the Department of Mining and Geology for public interest and for administrative convenience.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Promotion in the cadre of Geologist under Rule 28(a)((i) Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules Scale of Pay Rs.40,500-85,000/-
| Sl. | Name and Designation | Promoted and posted as |
|---|---|---|
| No. | ||
| 1. | Smt. Sheeja S., Assistant Geologist |
Geologist in the District Office of the Department of Mining & Geology, Pathanamthitta in the existing vacancy. |
| 2. | Smt. N.B. Preeja, Assistant | Geologist in the Directorate of |
| Geologist | Mining & Geology, |
|
| Thiruvananthapuram in the existing vacancy |
||
| 3. | Dr. Reena Thomas, Assistant Geologist |
Geologist in the District Office of the Department of Mining & |
| Geology, Alappuzha vice Sri. | ||
| K.K.Sajeevan, Geologist |
||
| transferred to the District | ||
| Office of the Department of Mining & Geology, Palakkad. |
||
| 4. | Sri. Sooraj S., Assistant | District Office of the |
| Geologist | Department of Mining & | |
| Geology, Thrissur vice Sri. | ||
| Sheljumon T.M., Geologist | ||
| transferred to the District | ||
| Office of the Department of Mining & Geology, Wayanad. |
WP(C).19441/2021
-:27:-
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Secretary, Industries (A) Department, Government of Kerala, and its English
Translation is reproduced:
“GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Abstract
Industries Department - Mining & Geology - Service - Approving the appointment, transfer and promotion of Geologist - Orders issued
Industries (A) Department
GO(Ord.) No.155/2020/ID
Dated, Thiruvananthapuram 20/2/2020
Ref: 1. GO(P) No.26/2019/ID dated 23/11/2019 2. Letter Nos.11712/E1/2019 dated 9/1/2020,
17/12/2019 of Director of Mining & Geology.
ORDER
The current order of transfer and promotion is issued considering the administrative exigencies and common interest of the Mining and Geology Department.
TRANSFER
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PROMOTION
WP(C).19441/2021
-:28:-
Sri. P. N. Bijumon, Smt. Sukhada Pradeep, Smt. P.C.Reshmi, who were the Assistant Geologists in the Mining & Geology Department are being promoted to the post of Geologist in the salary scale of 40,500/- - 85,000/- subject to the conditions in Rule 28(b)(1) as per the Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 as mentioned below:
By order of the Governor) Mohanaraj M Joint Secretary ”
respondents 3 and 4 respectively, from where service details of the said respondents could be seen; Exhibit-P6 is the query dated 4.8.2021 submitted by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005; and
Exhibit-P7 is the reply to Exhibit-P6 dated 11.08.2021 of the Public Information Officer, from where it is discernible that the probation of the
3rd respondent has not been declared.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:29:-
No.158/2003-04/5545/E1/2002/DMG. dated 24.06.2003 as regards
appointment of Assistant Geologist is extracted hereunder:
“ORDER
The Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission, Thiruvananthapuram vide reference 1st cited has advised Sri. B. Ajayakumar, Koovakkattu House, Ezhacherry P.O., Anthinadu (Via.), Kottayam-686651, for appointment as Asst. Geologist on Rs.6675-10550 against the existing vacancy in this Department subject to Rule 3(c) of the General Rules of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958.
Accordingly, Sri. B. Ajaykumar is appointed as Assistant Geologist on Rs.6675-10550 under Rule 9(a)(1) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 as provided for in Rule 10(b) of those Rules and posted in the District Office of this Department at Wayanad.
Sri. B. Ajaykumar is directed to report for duty before the Geologist, District Office, Department of Mining and Geology, PBM Building, Meenangadi-673571, Wayanad District within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order with original documents to prove age, community and educational qualifications along with a Medical Fitness Certificate duly obtained from a Medical Officer not below the rank of a Civil Surgeon, failing which the appointment offered will be cancelled and alternate arrangements made without further notice.
The candidate will have to undergo probation for a period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years service. The candidate will have to submit the enclosed proforma duly filled in (in duplicate) at the time of reporting duty.
The temporary appointment of Shri B. Ajaykumar will be regularised only after satisfactory report of Police
WP(C).19441/2021
-:30:-
verification regarding his character and antecedents.
The candidate should make an application for correction of date of birth, if any, within five years of his entry in Government service as contemplated in the G.O.(P) No.45/91/P&ARD dt. 30.12.1991.
He is further informed that in the event of discharge from service for want of vacancy, he may either re-register his name in the office of Kerala Public Service Commission from where he was advised and got himself re-appointed on further advice by the PSC or he may wait for his turn for reappointment to the post in this Department in case he desires to continue as a probationer in the post from which he is discharged.
Sd/-
N. KRISHNAKUMAR DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY”
26. Proceedings of the Director of Mining and Geology vide
No.374/2005-06/5890/E1/2005/DMG dated 06.10.2005 declaring probation
in the post of Assistant Geologist, is extracted hereunder:
“ ORDER
The Geologist Special Office, Cherthala vide reference 4th cited has requested to declare the probation of Shri B. Ajayakumar, Assistant Geologist of that office since he has completed two years in the post of Assistant Geologist.
On verification of the Service Book, it is found that Shri B. Ajayakumar has joined as Assistant Geologist in the District Office of this Department at Wayanad on 11/7/2003 FN as per the advice of KPSC and orders issued vide reference
WP(C).19441/2021
-:31:-
1st cited. His appointment was regularised w.e.f 11/7/2002 FN vide reference 2nd cited. Subsequently he was transferred and posted as such in the Special Office of this Department at Cherthala vide reference 3rd cited. As per rules he has to undergo probation for a period of two years within a continuous period of 3 years service in this Department. As such Sri. B. Ajayakumar has completed two years continuous service on the AN of 10/7/2005. During the above period he has not availed himself of any kind of leave which extends the period of probation. His work and conduct during the probation period were satisfactory.
In the above circumstances, the following orders are issued:
The probation of Shri B. Ajayakumar, in the post of Assistant Geologist on Rs.6675-10550 is declared to have been completed satisfactorily w.e.f 11/7/2005 FN.
He is entitled to get his second increment in the post of Assistant Geologist w.e.f 11/7/2005 FN. Accordingly his second increment of Rs.175/- in the post of Assistant Geologist on Rs.6675-10550 is sanctioned w.e.f 11/7/2005 FN raising his basic pay from Rs.6850 to Rs.7025.
Sd/-
N. KRISHNA KUMAR DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY.”
the Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (A) Department,
Government of Kerala, is extracted hereunder:
“GOVERNMENT OR KERALA
Industries (A) Department NOTIFICATION
G.O.(P) No. 16/2021/ID.
Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 5th June, 2016
WP(C).19441/2021
-:32:-
The following are the Select Lists of Officers for promotion to the categories of Additional Director, Deputy Director and Geologist in the Department of Mining and Geology prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee (Higher) met on 30-5-2016 and approved by Government for the year 2016.
I. Additional Director
Sri. T.K. Ramakrishnan
II. Deputy Director
Sri. C. Thambu Cherian
III. Geologist
P.H.KURIAN
Principal Secretary to Government and Convenor, DPC (Higher)”
Director of Mining and Geology, Thiruvananthapuram [Exhibit-R3(i)] is
extracted hereunder:
“From
Dr. B. Ajayakumar, Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology,
WP(C).19441/2021
-:33:-
District Office, Kottayam.
To
The Director of Mining and Geology Thiruvananthapuram.
Sir,
Sub:- Probation period-Request for extension of time-Reg. Ref:- G.O(Rt.) No. 969/2016/ID dated 22.09.2016.
Kind attention is invited to the above. I have been promoted as Geologist vide reference cited (1) above. Since I could not complete my probation period successfully due to non-qualifying the Accountant test, I humbly request that necessary steps may kindly be taken to extend my probation period.
Yours faithfully
Dr. B. Ajaykumar.”
Principal Secretary II, Industries Department (a), Thiruvananthapuram dated
Nil/9/21 [Exhibit-R3(j)] is extracted hereunder:
“xxxxxxxxxxx Dated: /09/2021
Number: DMG/8081/2021-E1
Director Principal Secretary II, Industrial (A) Department
Sir,
Sub:- Mining and Geology Department-employment matters Sri. Bijumon P.N. Geologist, Dr. Ajaykumar B., Geologist – extension of probation period readings.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:34:-
Ref: 1. G.O dated 20.02.2020 bearing no.G.O(Rt.) 155/2020/ID 2. G.O dated 22.09.2016 bearing no G.O (Rt.) 949/ 2016/ID
The Government's attention is drawn to the above reference. Mr. Bijumon PN, was the Assistant Geologist in the Department. Dr. Ajayakumar B, was promoted to the post of Geologist as per reference Nos.1, 2 and entered the job on 02.03.2020 and 23.09.2016 respectively. As per G.O. (P) No.42/10/P&ARD of 20.12.2020, the probation period in the post of Geologist is six months in a row. However, in the departmental examination required to declare probation, Mr. Bijumon PN and Dr. Ajayakumar B have not yet passed. The work and conduct of Sri. Bijumon PN and Dr. Ajayakumar B., in the post of Geologist are satisfactory. Dr. Ajayakumar B., Geologist has informed that he has written the last departmental examination, but the result has not come. In the above circumstances, the requests as per references (3,4) for taking follow-up action regarding extension of the probation period of Dr. Ajayakumar B., Geologist and Sri. Bijumon PN, Geologists are included herewith.”
advanced by the petitioner is that respondents 3 and 4 have not passed the
Department test, while promoting them as Geologist, from the post of Assistant Geologist; and the second contention is that they are continuing in
the said post without declaring the probation. Said submission is made on
the ground that continuance of respondents 3 and 4 in the post of Geologist
is clear violation of the provisions of Kerala State and Subordinate Service
WP(C).19441/2021 -:35:-
Rules, 1958. Therefore, according to the petitioner, unqualified persons are illegally performing the functions of District Geologist, in violation of the KS
& SSR and Mining and Geology Department Service Rules.
WP(C).19441/2021 -:36:-
per the Special Rules then in force, i.e., Kerala Geology Service Rules, 1981, there was no requirement for passing of Account Test (Lower and Higher) to declare promotion in the cadre of Assistant Geologist. However, as per Rule
7 of Exhibit-P1 Special Rules, 2009, which come into force on 20.07.2009,
every person appointed to any of the categories prescribed therein shall be from the date on which he/she joins duty, shall be on probation,- (i) if appointed by direct recruitment by transfer from any other service, for a total period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years; and (ii) if appointed by promotion, for a total period of one year on duty within a continuous period of two years.
WP(C).19441/2021 -:37:-
submissions made by the State, as well as respondents 3 and 4, that the party respondents are fully qualified to the post of Geologist in view of the qualification prescribed as per Exhibit-P1 Special Rules. Therefore, according
to the State Government, there is not even a scintilla of truth in the contentions advanced by the petitioner.
and 4. However, it is stated that as per Rule 21, Part II of KS & SSR, extension is sought for to acquire special qualifications or pass the prescribed test to enable the appointing authority to decide as to whether the probationer is suitable for full membership or not. It is also submitted that the said requests made by the party respondents are under consideration of the State Government.
WP(C).19441/2021 -:38:-
as is evident from the Admission Ticket dated 13.09.2021 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission [Exhibit-R3(l)]. Therefore, the basic contention advanced by the petitioner that the probation of respondents 3 and 4 were not declared in the post of Assistant Geologists, cannot be sustained, in view of the fact that as per the then existing Special Rules, there was no requirement for passing the Account Test (Lower and Higher) for the purpose of declaring probation. That apart, the contention of the petitioner that respondents 3 and 4 are continuing in the post of Geologist, without securing extension of probation, in contemplation of Rule 21 of Part II KS & SSR, 1958 also cannot be sustained, for the reason that respondents 3 and 4 had already applied for extension, which is pending consideration before the Government, and further, they have already participated in the Department test and results are awaited.
WP(C).19441/2021 -:39:-
probation, as the case may be, the Appointing Authority shall consider the probationer’s suitability for full membership of the service, class or category for which he was selected. The proviso thereto specifies that in case the probation was extended under Rule 21, solely to enable the probationer to acquire the special qualifications or to pass the prescribed tests, the Appointing Authority shall consider the probationer’s suitability for full membership of the service, class or category as soon as the probationer has acquired the special qualifications or has passed the prescribed tests. Other methods are also prescribed in the matter of discharging the probationer from the post held by him/her.
WP(C).19441/2021 -:40:-
vacancy in the higher class, category or grade arises within the period specified in the Special Rules for completion of probation in the class, category or grade in which he is probationer and if he has passed the test or tests prescribed for successful completion of probation and is otherwise eligible and suitable for such promotion: but his promotion shall be subject to the condition that he satisfactorily completes the probation in the class, category or grade from which he was promoted within the period prescribed therefor, and for this purpose the period of service put in by him in the higher class, category or grade shall be reckoned towards probation in the class, category or grade from which he was promoted and also in the class, category or grade to which he was promoted. The said rule is discussed because, as pointed out above, as per the Kerala Geology Service Rules, 1981, there was no mandatory requirement for passing of Account Test (Lower and Higher) for declaring probation, and therefore the probation of the party respondents were declared on completion of two years service in the post of assistant geologists, and in that view of the matter the promotion of respondents 3 and 4 to the next higher post of Geologist was in accordance with law.
WP(C).19441/2021 -:41:-
WP(C).19441/2021 -:42:-
because, the Government is vested with powers as per Rule 21 of KS & SSR, to extend the period of probation exceeding one year. Said application is
pending consideration before the State Government.
(i) In B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors . [(2001) 7 SCC 231], at paragraph Nos.79 to 81, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“79..............A writ of quo warranto is a writ which lies against the person, who according to the relator is not entitled to hold an office of public nature and is not an usurper of the office. It is the person, against whom the writ of quo warranto is
WP(C).19441/2021
-:43:-
directed, who is required to show, by what authority that person is entitled to hold the office. The challenge can be made on various grounds, including on the grounds that the possessor of the office does not fulfill the required qualifications or suffers from any disqualification, which debars the person to hold such office. So as to have an idea about the nature of action in a proceedings for writ of quo warranto and its original form, as it used to be, it would be beneficial to quote from Words and Phrases, Permanent Edn., Vol. 35-A, p. 648. It reads as follows:
“The original common-law writ of quo warranto was a civil writ at the suit of the Crown, and not a criminal prosecution. It was in the nature of a writ of right by the King against one who usurped or claimed franchises or liabilities, to inquire by what right he claimed them. This writ, however, fell into disuse in England centuries ago, and its place was supplied by an information in the nature of a quo warranto, which in its origin was a criminal method of prosecution, as well to punish the usurper by a fine for the usurpation of the franchise, as to oust him or seize it for the Crown. Long before our revolution, however, it lost its character as a criminal proceeding in everything except form, and was applied to the mere purposes of trying the civil right, seizing the franchise, or ousting the wrongful possessor, the fine being nominal only and such, without any special legislation to that effect, has always been its character in many of the States of the Union, and it is therefore a civil remedy only. Ames v. State of Kansas 4 S.Ct. 437, 442 : 111 US 449 : 1 Ed 482 (1884), People v. Dashaway Assn. 24 P 277, 278 : 84 Cal 114.”
“The writ of 'quo warranto' is not a substitute for mandamus or injunction nor for an appeal or writ of error, and is not to be used to prevent an improper exercise of power lawfully possessed, and its purpose is solely to prevent an officer or corporation or persons purporting to act as such from usurping a power which they do not have. State Ex inf. McKittrick v. Murphy 148 SW 2d 527, 529, 530 : 347 Mo 484.”
WP(C).19441/2021
-:44:-
Information in nature of 'quo warranto' does not command performance of official functions by an officer to whom it may run, since it is not directed to officer as such, but to person holding office or exercising franchise, and not for purpose of dictating or prescribing official duties, but only to ascertain whether he is rightfully entitled to exercise functions claimed. State ex inf. Walsh v. Thatche 102 SW 2d 937, 938 : 340 Mo 865.
(emphasis supplied)
“266. In general -- An information in the nature of a quo warranto took the place of the obsolete writ of quo warranto which lay against a person who claimed or usurped an office, franchise, or liberty, to inquire by what authority he supported his claim, in order what the right to the office or franchise might be determined.”
(emphasis supplied)
(ii) In Raju Puzhankara v. Kodiyeri Balakrishnan and Ors. [2009 KHC 244], a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court at paras 5 to 10, held as under:
“5. The next question is whether a Minister is holding a public office, so that a quo warranto writ can be issued, if he is functioning as a Minister without any legal authority. Another incidental question is, even if his initial assumption is valid in law, whether if he subsequently disqualify to hold office, can a writ of quo warranto be issued. There is no dispute that if a Minister is holding his office against law, a quo warranto writ can be issued. In S.R. Chowdhury v. State of Punjab and Ors. [AIR 2001 SC 2707], quo warranto writ was issued by the Supreme Court. In that case, a person who was not a member of the legislative assembly was appointed as Chief Minister. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even though under Article 164(4) of the Constitution of India, he can be appointed for an initial period of six months, he cannot be repeatedly continued to hold the office beyond the period of six months and, therefore, after the first six months, he cannot be appointed again and in that
WP(C).19441/2021
-:45:-
particular case quo warranto writ was issued. The Court also noticed that if he is repeatedly appointed to the above post, it will be flouting the constitutional scheme and mandate. In B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (AIR 2001 SC 3435), the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that even if a person is disqualified to become a member of the legislature, he cannot be appointed as a Minister or Chief Minister under the guise of Article 164(4) and a quo warranto writ can be issued to oust such person from office. In that case, Smt. Jayalalitha, who was convicted and sentenced by a Court of law for imprisonment for more than two years, without becoming a member of the Legislative Assembly occupied office of Chief Minister of Tamilnadu by virtue of Article 164(4) of the Constitution. The Apex Court held that if she is not qualified to become a member of the Legislative Assembly, she cannot be appointed as a Minister or a Chief Minister. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
“50. ...The Constitution prevails over the will of the people as expressed through the majority party. The will of the people as expressed through the majority party prevails only if it is in accord with the Constitution. The Governor is functionary under the Constitution and is sworn to 'preserve, protect and define the Constitution and the laws' (Article 159). The Governor cannot, in the exercise of his discretion or otherwise, do anything that is contrary to the Constitution and the laws. It is another thing that by reason of the protection the Governor enjoys under Article 361, the exercise of the Governor's discretion cannot be questioned. We are in no doubt at all that if the Governor is asked by the majority party in the legislature to appoint as Chief Minister a person who is not qualified to be a member of the legislature or who is disqualified to be a member of the legislature or who is disqualified to be such, the Governor must having due regard to the Constitution and the laws, to which he is subject, decline and the exercise of discretion by him in this regard cannot be called in question.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:46:-
WP(C).19441/2021
-:47:-
contention that he was disqualified under any of the provisions of the enactments or the Constitution. The only contention is that he has violated the oath of secrecy which was taken at the time of assumption of office. The form of oath of office to be taken at the time of assumption of office is as follows:
“I.....swear in the name of God/solemn affirm that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will faithfully and conscientiously discharge my duties as a Minister for the (State of Kerala) and that I will do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the law without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.”
The oath of secrecy to be taken is as follows:
“I.....swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that I will not directly or indirectly communicate or reveal to any person or persons any matter which shall be brought under my consideration or shall become known to me as a Minister for the (State of Kerala) except as may be required for the due discharge of my duties as such Minister.”
In this case, CBI prepared a final report after investigation. Two Government officers and one exMinister are arrayed as accused. C.B.I., has sought sanction to prosecute them and the Minister. It is stated in Ext. P-2 paper report that the first Respondent has stated that cases are not new to Pinarayi and they will fight the case politically. According to the Petitioner, by the above statement, the Minister has divulged the information that Pinarayi, an ex-minister, is an accused and thereby violated the oath. The violation of oath of office is a very serious matter. But the questions are whether there is any violation, and even if there is violation of oath, who is the authority to take action and whether writ of quo warranto will lie. When final report was filed levelling charges against an ex-Minister, a
WP(C).19441/2021
-:48:-
spontaneous reaction was made by the first Respondent. Whether such expression by the Home Minister before consideration of the issue by the Cabinet is improper is not a question to be considered by us. Impropriety of a statement by the Minister is nonjusticiable. Violation of oath is different from impropriety. In any event, a writ of quo warranto cannot be issued on the ground of impropriety and, in any view, for the impropriety in the conduct of a Minister writ of quo warranto will be issued by the Court sparingly in very special circumstances. It is a discretionary remedy. Even though the CBI has filed charges against the ex-Minister, unless he is found guilty by the Court, he is deemed to be innocent. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that the observations made by the Minister are not a violation of oath. This is only a prima facie opinion, as we are not called upon to give a verdict on that aspect in this proceedings.
“7. Breach of oath may thus be a betrayal of faith. The appointing authority, the Governor, in such cases, can consider whether there was, in fact, any breach of oath. It is not for this Court to embark on any such enquiry.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:49:-
Legislature of the State shall, at the expiration of that period, cease to be a Minister. This is the mandate of Article 164 of the Constitution. A person without authority cannot function; and the jurisdiction under Article 226 could be invoked to prevent that usurper in office from functioning.
“Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution; let us not make it a blank paper by construction.(Government by Judiciary-Raoul Berger – p.304.)
(iii) In N. Kannadasan and Ors. v. Ajoy Khose and Ors. reported in
[(2009) 7 SCC 1], on the issuance of a writ of quo warranto, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
“148. Concedingly, judicial review for the purpose of issuance of writ of Quo Warranto in a case of this nature would lie:
(A) in the event the holder of a public office was not eligible for appointment ;
(B) Processual machinery relating to consultation was not fully complied.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:50:-
independent substantive public office is called upon to show by what right he holds the same so that his title to it may be duly determined and in the event it is found that the holder has no title he would be directed to be removed from the said office by a judicial order. The proceedings not only give a weapon to control the executive from making appointments to public office against law but also tend to protect the public from being deprived of public office to which it has a right.
Quo warranto, or a proceeding in the nature thereof, is a proper and appropriate remedy to test the right or title to an office, and to remove or oust an incumbent.
It is prosecuted by the state against a person who unlawfully usurps, intrudes, or holds a public office. The relator must establish that the office is being unlawfully held and exercised by respondent, and that realtor is entitled to the office.
QUO WARRANTO, a writ issuable out of the Queen's Bench, in the nature of a writ of right, for the Crown, against him who claims or usurps any office, franchise, or liberty, to enquire by what authority he supports his claim, in order to determine the right. It lies also in case of non-user, or long neglect of a franchise, or mis-user or abuse of it; being a writ commanding the defendant to show by what warrant he exercises such a franchise having never had any grant of it, or having forfeited it be neglect or abuse.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:51:-
(iv) In Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Ors. [(2010) 9 SCC 655 ] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
“10. Writ of quo warranto lies only when appointment is contrary to a statutory provision. In High Court of Gujarat and Anr. v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat and Ors. (2003) 4 SCC 712, (three-Judges Bench) Hon'ble S.B. Sinha, J. concurring with the majority view held:
WP(C).19441/2021
-:52:-
“22. The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter of this nature is required to determine at the outset as to whether a case has been made out for issuance of a writ of certiorari or a writ of quo warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one. While issuing such a writ, the Court merely makes a public declaration but will not consider the respective impact of the candidates or other factors which may be relevant for issuance of a writ of certiorari. (See R.K. Jain v. Union of India, SCC para 74.)
“11. ... The High Court did not exercise its writ jurisdiction in the absence of any averment to the effect that the aforesaid officers had misused their authority and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the appellants. In our view the High Court should have considered the challenge to the appointment of the officials concerned as members of the Regional Transport Authority on the ground of breach of statutory provisions. The mere fact that they had not acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the appellant could not lend validity to their appointment, if otherwise, the appointment was in breach of statutory provisions of a mandatory nature. It has, therefore, become necessary for us to consider the validity of the impugned notification said to have been issued in breach of statutory provision.”
WP(C).19441/2021
-:53:-
12. In B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees Assn. and Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 731, this Court held:
“49. The law is well settled. The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter of this nature is required to determine, at the outset, as to whether a case has been made out for issuance of a writ of quo warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one which can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.
It is clear from the above decisions that even for issuance of writ of quo warranto, the High Court has to satisfy that the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. In the later part of our judgment, we would discuss how the appellant herein was considered and appointed as Chairman and whether he satisfied the relevant statutory provisions.
(a) Except for a writ of quo warranto, PIL is not maintainable in service matters.
(b) For issuance of writ of quo warranto, the High Court has to satisfy that the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.
(c) Suitability or otherwise of a candidate for appointment to a post in Government service is the function of the appointing authority and not of the Court unless the appointment is contrary to statutory provisions/rules.”
(v) In Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India, [(2014) 1 SCC 161] Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph (26), held as under:
“26. ....... writ of quo warranto can be issued only when person holding public office lacks eligibility or when appointment is contrary to statutory rules and held as under in paragraph 21:-
WP(C).19441/2021
-:54:-
"21. From the aforesaid exposition of law it is clear as noonday that the jurisdiction of the High Court while issuing a writ of quo warranto is a limited one and can only be issued when the person holding the public office lacks the eligibility criteria or when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. That apart, the concept of locus standi which is strictly applicable to service jurisprudence for the purpose of canvassing the legality or correctness of the action should not be allowed to have any entry, for such allowance is likely to exceed the limits of quo warranto which is impermissible. The basic purpose of a writ of quo warranto is to confer jurisdiction on the constitutional courts to see that a public office is not held by usurper without any legal authority."
(vi) In Renu and Ors. v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari and
Ors. [(2014) 14 SCC 50], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“15. Where any such appointments are made, they can be challenged in the court of law. The quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial remedy by which any person, who holds an independent substantive public office or franchise or liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty, so that his title to it may be duly determined, and in case the finding is that the holder of the office has no title, he would be ousted from that office by judicial order. In other words, the procedure of quo warranto gives the Judiciary a weapon to control the Executive from making appointments to public office against law and to protect a citizen from being deprived of public office to which he has a right. These proceedings also tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office who might be allowed to continue either with the connivance of the Executive or by reason of its apathy. It will, thus, be seen that before a person can effectively claim a writ of quo warranto, he has to satisfy the Court that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority, and that inevitably would lead to an enquiry as to whether the appointment of the alleged usurper has been made in
WP(C).19441/2021
-:55:-
accordance with law or not. For issuance of writ of quo warranto, the Court has to satisfy that the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules and the person holding the post has no right to hold it. (Vide: The University of Mysore and Anr. v. C.D. Govinda Rao and Anr. (AIR 1965 SC 491); Shri Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India and Ors. (AIR 1992 SC 1213); B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (AIR 2001 SC 3435); The Mor Modern Co-operative Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt., Haryana and Anr. (AIR 2002 SC 2513); Arun Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. (AIR 2006 SC 1413); Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Ors. (AIR 2010 SC 3515); and Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo and Ors . (2014) 1 SCC 161).”
(vii) In Premkumar T.R. v. Mahatma Gandhi University and Ors. reported in ILR 2018 (1) Kerala 993 , this Court held as under:
“27. Well established is the legal proposition that a writ of quo warranto lies when the appointment is made contrary to the statutory provisions. True, the University and Dr. Sebastian, too, have questioned Premkumar's locus standi to file the writ petition. Dr. Sebastian has, in fact, alleged that Premkumar was fielded by persons unhappy with his appointment as the Vice Chancellor. But this objection to the suitor's standing in a writ of quo warranto cannot detain us for long. Legion are the judicial precedents.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:56:-
infringed. But the Court must be satisfied that the person so applying is bona fide, and there is a necessity in public interest to declare judicially that there is a usurpation of public office. [Id., 1355] Indisputably, a writ of quo warranto questioning a usurper's occupying public office, according to the Supreme Court, can be maintained even by a busybody ( N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose [(2009) 7 SCC 1 : 2009 (8) SCALE 351]).
(viii) In Bharati Reddy v. The State of Karnataka and Ors . reported in
( 2018) 6 SCC 162 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as as under:
“26. In K. Venkatachalam v. A. Swamickan ( AIR 1999 SC 1723) : (1999) 4 SCC 526, the challenge was to the election of the Appellant to the Legislative Assembly in Tamil Nadu by way of a writ Under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the contesting candidate (Respondent therein) for a declaration that the Appellant was not qualified to be a Member of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, since he was not enrolled as an elector in the electoral roll in the concerned constituency for the general elections in question. The Court analysed the factual matrix which pointed out that, admittedly, the incumbent was not an elector of the concerned constituency and that
WP(C).19441/2021
-:57:-
he blatantly and fraudulently impersonated himself as another elector in the constituency. Accepting that indisputable position, the Court proceeded to conclude that the Appellant was not eligible to contest elections from the concerned constituency, not being a voter in that constituency. It thus held that the Appellant therein lacked the basic qualification under Clause (c) of Article 173 of the Constitution of India read with Section 5 of the 1951 Act, which was quintessential to be elected from the constituency. On such a finding, the Court entertained the writ petition Under Article 226 and declared the Appellant to be occupying the public office without legal authority and issued a writ of quo warranto. In other words, the matter was decided on the basis of indisputable and established facts. This judgment will be of no avail to the writ Petitioners in the present case, so long as the Income and Caste Certificate issued to the Appellant is in force.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:58:-
Appellant though, apparently, the petition was for a writ of quo warranto.”
in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B ., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349, and
held as under:
“5. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of the expression “public interest litigation”. In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 4 (4th Edn.), “public interest” is defined thus:
“Public interest.— (1) A matter of public or general interest ‘does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected’.”
“Public interest.— Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or national Government.”
WP(C).19441/2021
-:59:-
judgment, after considering what is public interest, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down as follows:
“The expression ‘litigation’ means a legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in a court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression ‘PIL’ means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.”
“Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasis that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory; because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold.”
“While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration.”
“It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach
WP(C).19441/2021
-:60:-
the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.”
WP(C).19441/2021
-:61:-
busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no real public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffling their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions of luxury litigants who have nothing to lose but trying to gain for nothing and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:62:-
not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.
“Public interest law is the name that has recently been given to efforts which provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary marketplace for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others.”
WP(C).19441/2021
-:63:-
petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:64:-
and their names in circulation, despite having really become defunct in actual public life and try to smear and smirch the solemnity of court proceedings. They must really inspire confidence in courts and among the public, failing which such litigation should be axed with a heavy hand and dire consequences.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:65:-
without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Apart from the sinister manner, if any, of getting such copies, the real brain or force behind such cases would get exposed to find out whether it was a bona fide venture. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs, as it prima facie gives impression about oblique motives involved, and in most cases shows proxy litigation. Where the petitioner has not even a remote link with the issues involved, it becomes imperative for the court to lift the veil and uncover the real purpose of the petition and the real person behind it. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts.”
Suppl. SCC 87], the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the court must be careful to see that a member of the public, who approaches the Court with a public interest litigation, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration and that the
WP(C).19441/2021 -:66:-
court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective.
“This is a public interest litigation in respect of a service matter. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that no public interest litigation lies in service matters, the last decision being Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab , (2005 J.T. [5] SC 389). Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.”
SCC 731, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the
WP(C).19441/2021
-:67:-
jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto. After conducting a deep seated survey of the earlier judgments, the Hon’ble Apex
Court held as under:
“ 51. It is settled law by a catena of decisions that the court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Government in the choice of the person to be appointed so long as the person chosen possesses the prescribed qualification and is otherwise eligible for appointment. This Court in R.K. Jain v. Union of India [(1993) 4 SCC 119 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1128 : (1993) 25 ATC 464] was pleased to hold that the evaluation of the comparative merits of the candidates would not be gone into a public interest litigation and only in a proceeding initiated by an aggrieved person, may it be open to be considered. It was also held that in service jurisprudence it is settled law that it is for the aggrieved person, that is, the non-appointee to assail the legality or correctness of the action and that a third party has no locus standi to canvass the legality or correctness of the action. Further, it was declared that public law declarations would only be made at the behest of a public-spirited person coming before the court as a petitioner. Having regard to the fact that neither Respondents 1 and 2 were or could have been candidates for the post of Managing Director of the Board and the High Court could not have gone beyond the limits of quo warranto so very well delineated by a catena of decisions of this Court and applied the test which could not have been applied even in a certiorari proceedings brought before the Court by an aggrieved party who was a candidate for the post.
52. The judgment impugned in this appeal not only exceeds the limit of quo warranto but has not properly appreciated the fact that the writ petition filed by the Employees' Union and the President of the Union, Halakatte was absolutely lacking in bona fides. In the instant case, the motive of the second respondent Halakatte is very clear and the Court might in its discretion decline to grant a quo warranto.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:68:-
53. This Court in A.N. Shashtri v. State of Punjab [1988 Supp SCC 127] held that the writ of quo warranto should be refused where it is an outcome of malice or ill will. The High Court failed to appreciate that on 18-1-2003 the appellant filed a criminal complaint against the second respondent Halakatte, that cognizance was taken by the criminal court in CC No. 4152 of 2003 by the Jurisdictional Magistrate on 24-22003, process was issued to the second respondent who was enlarged on bail on 12-6-2003 and the trial is in progress. That apart, the second respondent has made successive complaints to the Lokayukta against the appellant which were all held to be baseless and false. This factual background which was not disputed coupled with the fact that the second respondent Halakatte initiated the writ petition as President of the 1st respondent Union, which had ceased to be a registered trade union as early as on 2-111992 suppressing the material fact of its registration having been cancelled, making allegations against the appellant which were no more than the contents of the complaints filed by him before the authorities which had been found to be false after thorough investigation by the Karnataka Lokayukta, would unmistakably establish that the writ petition initiated by Respondents 1 and 2 lacked in bona fides and it was the outcome of the malice and ill will the 2nd respondent nurses against the appellant. Having regard to this aspect of the matter, the High Court ought to have dismissed the writ petition on that ground alone and at any event should have refused to issue a quo warranto , which is purely discretionary. It is no doubt true that the strict rules of locus standi are relaxed to an extent in a quo warranto proceedings. Nonetheless an imposter coming before the Court invoking public law remedy at the hands of a constitutional court suppressing material facts has to be dealt with firmly.
54. This Court in B. Singh (Dr.) v. Union of India [(2004) 3 SCC 363] held that only a person who comes to the Court with bona fides and public interest can have locus. Coming down heavily on busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or
WP(C).19441/2021
-:69:-
officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, this Court at para 14 of the Report held as under: (SCC p. 373, para 14)
“ 14 . The court has to be satisfied about: ( a ) the credentials of the applicant; ( b ) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and ( c ) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interests: ( i ) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and ( ii ) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as publicspirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.”
70. In the instant case, there is no violation of statutory provision and, therefore, in our view, a writ of quo warranto does not lie. If there be any doubt, it has to be resolved in favour of upholding the appointment.
71. In Statesman (P) Ltd. v. H.R. Deb [AIR 1968 SC 1495] Hidyatullah, C.J., speaking for the Constitution Bench indicated: (SCR p. 621 F)
“The High Court in a quo warranto proceeding should be slow to pronounce upon the matter unless there is a clear infringement of the law.”
WP(C).19441/2021
-:70:-
72 . In the circumstances which we have narrated above in paragraphs supra, it is indeed difficult to hold that the appellant did not have the requisite qualification.
73. The above ruling was followed in A.N. Shashtri v. State of Punjab [1988 Supp SCC 127]. We are of the view that in the facts of this case, the reasonable conclusion to reach should have been that the writ petitioners had failed to establish that the appellant did not possess requisite qualification and the appeals are, therefore, allowed and the judgment of the High Court has to be set aside and the writ petition has to be dismissed.
78. The High Court, in the instant case, was not exercising certiorari jurisdiction. Certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only at the instance of a person who is qualified to the post and who is a candidate for the post. This Court in Umakant Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [(1973) 1 SCC 485] held that the appointment cannot be challenged by one who himself is not qualified to be appointed. In Kumari Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 228] a Constitution Bench of this Court held as under: (SCC p. 234, para 12)
“12. The other question which was canvassed before the High Court and which has been pressed before us relates to the merits of the nominations made to the reserved seats. It seems to us that the appellants do not have any right to challenge the nominations made by the Central Government. They do not compete for the reserved seats and have no locus standi in the matter of nomination to such seats. The assumption that if nominations to reserved seats are not in accordance with the rules all such seats as have not been properly filled up would be thrown open to the general pool is wholly unfounded.”
84. In our opinion, the finding of legal mala fides is unsustainable being based on a misunderstanding of the law and facts. When a competent and experienced officer of an outstanding merit is appointed to a higher post on contract basis after his superannuation from service in the larger
WP(C).19441/2021
-:71:-
public interest, it does not suffer from legal malice at all. The decision of the then Chief Minister, Shri S.M. Krishna, recorded in the file, is also extracted by the High Court at p. 69 of SLP paper-book, Vol. II. In the context of the note put up by the Secretary of the Department, it is again extracted at pp. 67 and 68 which clearly bring out the fact that the appointment was made in the interest of the Board and the State at a time when nobody else other than the appellant could have served the interests of the State better. The High Court failed to appreciate the element of urgency involved in making the appointment because of impending negotiations with World Bank scheduled for 9-2-2004. The writ petition, in our opinion, was motivated as Respondent No.1 had lodged a false complaint to the Lokayukta against the appellant which was found to be baseless by the Lokayukta (Annexure P-9). A petition praying for a writ of quo warranto being in the nature of public interest litigation, it is not maintainable at the instance of a person who is not unbiased. The second respondent is the President of the first respondent Union. He has chosen this forum to settle personal scores against his erstwhile superior officer after his retirement. The proceeding, in our view, is not meant to settle personal scores by an employee of the department. The High Court, in our view, ought to have dismissed the writ petition filed by Respondent No.1 at the threshold.
Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
“The scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this court in various cases.
Referring to the decisions in Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others , reported
WP(C).19441/2021
-:72:-
in 1998 (7) SCC 273 and Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B reported in (2004 (3) SCC 349), cited supra, the Apex Court held that PIL in service matters has been held as not maintainable.”
in (2010) 9 SCC 655, claiming himself as Vidyut Shramik Leader, a writ petition was filed before the High Court, challenging the appointment of Mr. Hari Bansh Lal, as the Chairman of Jharkhand State Electricity Board. The High Court declared that his appointment was not only arbitrary, but also, contemptuous, and ultimately, quashed the appointment order, which gave rise to an appeal. Addressing the issue, as to whether a public interest writ petition, is maintainable in service matters, following the earlier decisions in
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others , reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273 and Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B reported in [(2004) 3 SCC 349] and other decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
“PIL in service matters:
WP(C).19441/2021
-:73:-
is not a service matter. In fact, such objection was not raised and agitated before the High Court. Even otherwise, in view of the fact that the appellant herein was initially appointed and served in the State Electricity Board as a Member in terms of Section 5(4) and from among the Members of the Board, considering the qualifications specified in sub-section (4), the State Government, after getting a report from the vigilance department, appointed him as Chairman of the Board, it is impermissible to claim that the issue cannot be agitated under service jurisprudence.
The same principles have been reiterated in the subsequent decisions, namely, Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and Others , (2004) 3 SCC 363, Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Others , (2005) 1 SCC 590 and Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Other s, (2005) 5 SCC 136.
WP(C).19441/2021 -:74:-
Court in Dr. B. Singh (Dr.) v. Union of India , [(2004) 3 SCC 363], B. Srinivasa
Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees Association and others [(2006) 11 SCC 731], Seema Dharmdhere, Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. State of Maharashtra , [(2008) 2 SCC 290], and Vishal Ashok Thorat and Ors. v. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate and Ors., (AIR 2019 SC 3616), reiterated the said proposition of law that PIL in service matters is not maintainable.
WP(C).19441/2021 -:75:-
that they have the required qualification as per the Kerala Geology Service Rules, 1981. Further, it was after successful completion of their probation, the respondents 3 and 4 were appointed as Geologist, in terms of the provisions of Exhibit-P1 Special Rules.
WP(C).19441/2021
-:76:-
quo warranto , also cannot be granted, since we are not granting the
primary reliefs sought for by the petitioner.
In the result, this Writ Petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Manikumar
Chief Justice
Sd/-
Shaji P. Chaly Judge
krj
WP(C).19441/2021
-:77:-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
| P2 | COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(RT) NO.949/2016/ID DATED 22/9/2016. |
|---|---|
| P3 | COPY OF SAID GOVERNMENT ORDER, GO(ORD) 155/2020/ID DATED 20/2/2020 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. |
| P4 | COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES FROM THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| P5 | COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES FROM THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. |
| P6 | COPY OF QUERY DATED 4/8/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. |
| P7 | COPY OF REPLY DATED 11/8/2021 OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO EXHIBIT P6 QUERY WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. |
| P8 | COPY OF MINING PLAN APPROVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 16/10/2017 WHILE HE WAS WORKING AS GEOLOGIST IN IDUKKI. |
| P9 | COPY OF MINING PLAN APPROVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 11/12/2017 WHILE HE WAS WORKING AS GEOLOGIST IN IDUKKI. |
| P10 | COPY OF MINING PLAN APPROVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 19/3/2018 WHILE HE WAS WORKING AS GEOLOGIST IN IDUKKI. |
| P11 | COPY OF MINING PLAN APPROVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 21/4/2018 WHILE HE WAS WORKING AS GEOLOGIST IN IDUKKI. |
| P12 | COPY OF MINING PLAN APPROVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 3/9/2018 WHILE HE WAS WORKING AS GEOLOGIST IN IDUKKI. |
| P13 | COPY OF MINING PLAN APPROVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 12/10/2018 WHILE HE WAS WORKING AS GEOLOGIST IN IDUKKI. |
| P14 | COPY OF MINING PLAN APPROVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14/11/2018 WHILE HE WAS WORKING AS GEOLOGIST IN IDUKKI. |
| P15 | COPY OF MINING PLAN APPROVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 3/12/2018 WHILE HE WAS WORKING AS GEOLOGIST IN IDUKKI. |
WP(C).19441/2021
-:78:-
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :
WP(C).19441/2021
-:79:-
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
3 issues framed by the court
Did failure to pass the Account Test and obtain declaration of probation render the promoted Geologists usurpers liable to quo warranto?
Was a public interest challenge to the Geologists' appointments maintainable when no ground for quo warranto was established?
Could orders issued by the Geologists be invalidated consequentially when the primary relief of quo warranto was refused?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.Relied on¶347
[(2001) 7 SCC 231] · Who else cites this
Raju Puzhankara v. Kodiyeri Balakrishnan and Ors.Relied on¶362
[2009 KHC 244]
N. Kannadasan and Ors. v. Ajoy Khose and Ors.Relied on¶392
[(2009) 7 SCC 1] · Who else cites this
Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and othersApplied¶547
(2010) 9 SCC 655 · Who else cites this
Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶432
[(2014) 1 SCC 161] · Who else cites this
Renu and Ors. v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari and Ors.Relied on¶437
[(2014) 14 SCC 50] · Who else cites this
Premkumar T.R. v. Mahatma Gandhi University and Ors.Relied on¶443
ILR 2018 (1) Kerala 993 · Who else cites this
Bharati Reddy v. The State of Karnataka and Ors.Relied on¶452
Bharati Reddy v. The State of Karnataka and Ors
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B.Relied on¶463
(2004) 3 SCC 349 · Who else cites this
S. P. Gupta and Others v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶505
S. P. Gupta and Others v. Union of India
Indian Consumers Welfare Council v. Union of India and anotherRelied on¶509
2005 (3) L.W. 522
Gurpal Singh v. State of PunjabReferred¶509
2005 J.T. [5] SC 389 · Who else cites this
Neetu v. State of PunjabRelied on¶540
(2007) 10 SCC 614 · Who else cites this
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and othersReferred¶549
(1998) 7 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
Dr. B. Singh (Dr.) v. Union of IndiaReferred¶560
[(2004) 3 SCC 363] · Who else cites this
Seema Dharmdhere, Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶561
[(2008) 2 SCC 290] · Who else cites this
Vishal Ashok Thorat and Ors. v. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate and Ors.Referred¶561
(AIR 2019 SC 3616) · Who else cites this
10 provisions across 4 enactments
BENNY SEBASSTIAN
STATE OF KERALA
THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY
AJAY KUMAR
BIJUMON
S. Manikumar
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
